What do you mean by insight?

If it (insight) complies with the lexical meaning then I think it's a product of clear, deliberate and focused thought.

However, the word "insight" has connotations that the word "understand" lacks which I'm only guessing is the comparison. These, to name a few, are "getting to the heart of an issue", and "glimpse the true nature of a problem". These are what I personally associate with insight.

From my own experience I've come to the realization that every and any issue we come across has what can be classified as critical and incidental elements and the latter are very effective distractions, red herrings as it were, leading you away from the former and obscuring the truth. Insight would, in this context, be the ability to identify such elements, separate the wheat from the chaff and once that's done you can hope for a more productive engagement.

So, yes, insight seen as I described above is germane to philosophy which is clearly complex enough to have more than an adequate number of distractions to sidetrack you in your inquiry.

I don't know how related insight is to pattern recognition but the latter brings to the table a very powerful tool to philosophical investigations because of how the recognition of a common pattern between two entirely different problems will enable the solution to one applicable, at least in principle, to the other. Nobody wants to reinvent the wheel.

Very well put. :cheer:

Very well put. — John Gill

I don't or rather can't practice what I preach :confused:

I was wondering if insight was considered a valid way to advance philosophy — Mikey

I'm a little bit confused by the OP linking "insight" (whatever that is) with "pattern recognition", which is sometimes, it seems to me, the opposite of "insightfulness". For example:



One person sees a face, another sees a natural rock formation. Which observer has "insight" and which is recognizing patterns? So where would the line be between apophenia and insightful pattern recognition? And with such an obvious (and, it seems, necessarily subjective) limitation, how could philosophy be (reliably) advanced on the basis of "insight"? But that is not to say that someone might not have a "philosophical insight" by recognizing a "pattern" among the collection of available facts that had not been recognized before. That's more or less how science "advances". In the end though, I guess any such insight would have to be shown to conform to logic before it could be established as a "philosophical advance". Wouldn't it?

--

Insight would, in this context, be the ability to identify such elements, separate the wheat from the chaff and once that's done you can hope for a more productive engagement. — TheMadFool

-- ... Uhhhh, no. I mentioned the pattern recognition of the neural net, biological or machine as a pattern recognition function. I guess it removes what is not part of the pattern, but the point is it "sees" the pattern. It just ignores the clutter. Focus on the pattern is absolute. I should have compared insight to sight because they are the same mechanism, a neural net, and vision is more familiar. With sight, you just look and it sees the pattern or it doesn't. Vision research shows that you see the outlines, then the elements, then the location of the elements in the outline, etc., but it's all pretty fast and automatic. If you don't see the pattern, it's usually easier to blink and start over than to work on it. Even if you concentrate on something to figure out parts of what you are seeing, it will still be the neural net that suddenly picks up the pattern and shows it to you.

I don't know how related insight is to pattern recognition but the latter brings to the table a very powerful tool to philosophical investigations because of how the recognition of a common pattern between two entirely different problems will enable the solution to one applicable, at least in principle, to the other. — TheMadFool

-- Such a fascinating view, and sometimes applicable, but usually secondarily. There is the flash of insight that recognizes a single pattern. Any recognition of related patterns and relatedness can only follow, but yes, it does. An insight leads to other insights. It can be quite a high, the ecstasy of understanding.
Interesting, I've recently been looking at what happens when a person seeks to understand perfection. They are like a computer asked to multiply by infinity. Some can pull out of it, some not. I can extrapolate that that describes an element of the Catholic concept of God and in concepts of a rather annoying friend of mine, but it isn't pattern recognition that shows the similarity. It's logic. I don't think insight is great for "super patterns".

I'm a little bit confused by the OP linking "insight" (whatever that is) with "pattern recognition", which is sometimes, it seems to me, the opposite of "insightfulness". For example: — Siti

Insight, to me is that flash of understanding we have. Not logic, not analysis, but the almost instant function of recognition of the mind. It is not unique to humans either nor just to highly intelligent humans, though it's highest function is what is typically called genius.

One person sees a face, another sees a natural rock formation. Which observer has "insight" and which is recognizing patterns? — Siti

That is sight, not insight. As I said, it is extremely similar to insight. It is the opposite of apophenia. It is the perception of one thing, an integral object.

I guess any such insight would have to be shown to conform to logic before it could be established as a "philosophical advance". Wouldn't it? — Siti

Quite true. Insight existed long before language, but until it is converted into cultural tools such as language or mathematics that can be communicated, it's not useful and is even hard to remember. Once converted to cultural tools, the insight can be communicated and also then evaluated logically. It can also then transmit the understanding that the insight created in the first place. I just wonder how often in philosophy, after an understanding has been explained with cultural tools (language) is it recognized that it was not logic that led to the understanding. It only led to the communication and verification of the understanding. I only ask because I've repeatedly read that philosophy is only advanced by logic and reason, but I think understanding is primarily advanced by insights from the neural net, which are not based on logic. Logic only follows.







,

Insight, to me is that flash of understanding we have. Not logic, not analysis, but the almost instant function of recognition of the mind. — Mikey

So would that not be "intuition" rather than "insight"? And forgive me my lack of faith, but I can't help being very wary of philosophical ideas based on intuition and pattern recognition. Logic never gets it wrong - it can be inconclusive or misapplied, but logic itself is incapable of error - not so intuition.

i had the insight that unicorns exist, people would call that religion. Insight is some times built on the foundation of logic but to some extent it is a leap of faith into the unknown.

てしまっ

Yes ! Philosophy is the only way to attempt to go beyond the limits of classical logic despite the 'anti-philosopher' stance taken by some celebrated physicists like Feynman.
For example, there are philosophical discussions in the literature about the application of Derrida's concept of aporia to quantum concepts like 'complementarity' which defy 'the law of the excluded middle'.

I don't think insight is intuition. Is the operation of AI image recognition by a neural net intuition? I think not. Intuition is problem solving using moral instincts... but not too many people understand instincts, moral instincts, etc.. and that includes most biologist types like me. Insight cannot be communicated without being converted to [words] that can be evaluated by logic. Insight is explained with [words] and is either converted to logic already or is in the process. Intuition is explained as "I feel that" and usually is not followed by seking a logical explanation. Insight and intuition are very different things but since insight can use any data, it can use intuition. I suspect it would work the reverse as well, but they are two different things.

As far as I know, insight is never or rarely built on logic. Logic is a different part of the brain. Logic can only be done with some kind of cultural artifacts such as language or maths. Insight, like sight, is something that can occur without any known language. It is not a leap of faith into the unknown. It is a conversion of the unknown to the recognized.

I've also had to explore where logic doesn't apply, that is the "organic". Evolution is organic, it is just what has happened and worked. It is not logical except perhaps to an Arisian but certainly not logic available to a human. Evolution includes a huge component of luck. There are a few places where logic cannot be applied to the problems I work on, but right now I'm trying to solve a few philosophical problems. I suppose I'll paraphrase what I said - I think understanding is primarily advanced by insights from the neural net, which are not based on logic. Logic only follows as the insight is converted to cultural artifacts (such as language) that can be communicated and then it can become philosophy. The question is whether it is recognized in philosophy that many understandings came from insight and then became philosophy. Human ability with logic is very limited or else it would be easy to write the logic of complicated computer programs but instead the complexity very quickly becomes a barrier. I don't think philosophy would have gotten very far at all without insight. Insight provided by the neural net of the brain existed long before language or philosophy. As far as I know, language, including maths, are the only tools of logic available to philosophy. There cannot be philosophy without language, but there can be insight and understanding without philosophy or language. There can also be logic without language, but it is slower (watch horses solve problems).

So where would the line be between apophenia and insightful pattern recognition? — Siti

Logic never gets it wrong — Siti

What on earth is a pattern anyway? One meaning that stares us in the face is repetition e.g. a bird motif on a fabric or carpet; a certain rule being applied, again, repetitively e.g. in a mathematical sequence where the next number in the sequence is a matter of applying the same, exact rule to the preceding number.

Apophenia, as I understand it, is seeing connections where none exist. It has also come to mean the human tendency to seek patterns. The impression this definition of apophenia gives is that, in actuality, there is no pattern. Perhaps I misunderstand; correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe this is incorrect insofar as apophenia asserts that there is no pattern for the simple reason that we can perceive a pattern, even if "untrue", only if the object of consideration has the pattern perceived. As an example we see faces on objects that possess a facial pattern and not in objects whose structures preclude the lines, light and shade, etc. of faces.

Let's consider your example of the famous face on Mars. It's impossible to deny that we can see a face because, well, we do. That particular feature in the Martian terrain undoubtedly has the pattern of a human face. Apophenia can't deny the existence of a pattern but it can claim that some patterns aren't the real thing; the face on Mars isn't an actual face.

There is a danger in thinking that every object that possesses the pattern of an object, say x, is x. The object x exists in a certain environment and has relationships that can be associative and causal. x maybe cause and effect and associated with other objects. If we consider all patterns of x-type to be x then we have to accept all the relationships it has, associative and causal, and that would be erroneous. For instance the face on Mars if taken to be a human face, would force us to believe in a Martian civilization very similar to our own but dead dead and gone.

Insight, as pattern recognition but contrasted with apophenia, is simply the recognition of a pattern that is a defining feature of a class of objects. As an example Newton's realization that heavenly bodies twirling around in space and an apple falling are similar - there's a pattern - is an insight of monumental significance or so scientists say.

I'm sure you already know this but I'll say it anyway: logic is basically a pattern of thinking that leads to truths. Logic is a codification of valid forms of argumentation which are basically patterns of "correct" thinking.

Even if you concentrate on something to figure out parts of what you are seeing, it will still be the neural net that suddenly picks up the pattern and shows it to you. — Mikey

I don't know why you brought up the notion of suddenness into insight but aren't you ignoring the probably many hours, even years spent on a problem before a breakthrough. It misses the point in some respect doesn't it? After all suddenness if critical to the definition of insight completely ignores the effort that usually goes into serious thinking. Nonetheless, insight is orgasmic if thinking is likened to sex.

isn't pattern recognition that shows the similarity. It's logic. I don't think insight is great for "super patterns". — Mikey

They are like a computer asked to multiply by infinity. — Mikey

What do you mean by "super patterns"?

I like the analogy of a computer tasked with multiplying infinity. If you mean that there are limits to what our minds can do, then yes, at times, depending on our intelligence which differs from person to person, we do find ourselves faced with problems that are nothing short of an impassable barrier.

Yet I feel that incomprehensibility is a sign of a collision between the usual state of affairs and special cases. The former allows us to construct rules that govern them and understanding sets in but the moment latter are encountered we are left scratching our heads in utter confusion. Infinity is like that, a special quantity that defies all the mathematical rules that work perfectly with finite numbers.

I read the statement that logic and reason are the only way to advance Philosophy. Do you consider that to be true?
The reason I ask is that I also study insight... what would be considered the pattern recognition function of both the human and mechanical neural net. I was wondering if insight was considered a valid way to advance philosophy or is it somehow excluded as a tool? I've written about insight some and I do describe how insight must be converted into cultural tools such as language or math which logic can be applied to so it could be a moot point, but I was wondering where does insight fit in? — Mikey

Fundamentally, I don't think that most philosophers care where an idea came from. Even if it came from intuition, it will still be evaluated if it seems intriguing for a philosopher. Remember: logic was first invented without logic. And for example in ethics, many philosophers seem to consider our moral intuition an important demonstration of the philosophical reality of a moral dimension in reality even when they don't have a logical proof of a moral dimension.

While logic seems to be the demonstrably best tool for philosophy, that doesn't mean intuition and other things can't be used even if they end up being ultimately judged by logic.

I moved this to the top even though I wrote it after the response to TheMadFool.

While logic seems to be the demonstrably best tool for philosophy, that doesn't mean intuition and other things can't be used even if they end up being ultimately judged by logic. — Qmeri

- Thank you...

Fundamentally, I don't think that most philosophers care where an idea came from. — Qmeri

What I was asking... I think they should become aware of it though.

Logic never gets it wrong — Siti

Not necessarily. It's easy to get into a tautology without realizing it. It can take quite a while to work through the logic before you find that you are comparing A to A which is useless rather than A to B which may show something new.

What on earth is a pattern anyway? — TheMadFool

I didn't say that all patterns led to understandings, but understandings do come from recognizing patterns. Patterns are how humans understand. Are they reflections of reality? Probably. Just as Hegel pointed out that atomic theory said that our perceptions of objects are relatively objective, so too an understanding of biology can lead to some objective understanding of life.

logic is basically a pattern of thinking that leads to truths. Logic is a codification of valid forms of argumentation which are basically patterns of "correct" thinking. — TheMadFool

I agree with the second part, but the point is I don't think the first part is very true. Logic is very limited (like computer programs) due to complexity. Insight is far more revealing, but then must be converted to logic. It is far more likely that insight rather than logic showed Newton the relationship between heavenly bodies and the falling apple. He then had to explain it to others logically.

What do you mean by "super patterns"? — TheMadFool

Your mention of Newton would be a perfect example if he figured them out at the same time using the data from both. That's unlikely though. The story about the apple is more likely in the sense that he had an insight... then you tend to have a cascade of insights.

I don't know why you brought up the notion of suddenness into insight

- Actually, it probably does take a lot of time, but it is not processing you can perceive. If you go through a logical process in your mind, you are very aware of it. You are no more aware of the process leading to insight than you are to sight, It also takes repeated insights. The insights build, but they are not in a form that human memory is good at retaining. Then visual memory is quite limited as well. At some point though, the person can retain the insight enough to start converting it to words. Also, there will be uncertainties to it which can be logically resolved. Those processes are automatically triggered and you can sometimes be aware of them, but they also can be out of the mind's sight or you can work on them consciously. First though must come the insight. Without it, there is nothing for the logic to try to resolve. Now consider that I said I had an insight that the pursuit of perfection (Perfect Forms) described by Plato was what resulted in the weird nature of God described by the Medieval Catholics (how many angels dancing on the head of a pin). I logically leveraged that to say that I think my friend was looking for perfection (multiplying by infinity) in his diatribes about machine intelligence (the singularity). The first understanding took insight, the second was a logical extension of the first... the apple falling, heavenly bodies orbiting...

The problem is that insight is very slippery and does not lend itself to verbal description. For most people, it is quite rare and even for the people that experience it, it certainly isn't common. On a lark, I wrote a book about it, When Barbara Explained Genius, because of a question about if from the Templeton Organization. This is all related to the first question, how much is it understood that insight is far more likely the source of understanding even if that understanding must be converted to logic. Now Michael Polanyi did discuss Heuristic Knowledge and Emergence which was also a description of insight. I was just surprised at the statement that Philosophy can only proceed by logic. Is insight widely understood in the world of philosophy? It doesn't seem so.




.

I was just surprised at the statement that Philosophy can only proceed by logic. — Mikey

Insight is far more revealing, but then must be converted to logic — Mikey

These two statements seem to be contradicting each other or if not, it clearly asserts the preeminence of logic.

Although we started off by associating pattern recognition with insight, I think there's something more to it than just that.

Some issues or problems maybe unique enough to have nothing in common with anything else: this would mean that an absence of a pattern. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head but how about cyber-crime? Cyber-crime is a recent development and when the first laws were drafted there were no precedents - no patterns. In such cases we would need to identify the critical and nonessential elements of cyber-crime and work from these to laws that make sense. I think I mentioned this aspect of insight in a previous post.

I believe there is a strong or weak connection between all phrases including language phrases. I believe while leaving room for some small amount of error, all notions, facts and also non contradicting phrases can be quantified, typically in the form of a curved (parabola for example) line. With enough pain staking effort all fields of study can be quantified. A 3d object is produced with binary computers and thus when something is quantified it is a form of simplification. Insight in my opinion is a educated guess done by a somewhat ignorant person. We all in fact make minor and major insights every day such as hunting for a deer in the forest and finding poop on the ground.

Insight in my opinion is a educated guess done by a somewhat ignorant person. — christian2017

Fine, but what is the function of the neural net in biology and machines then? What does it do? I refer to its output as insight. What do you call it?

These two statements seem to be contradicting each other or if not, it clearly asserts the preeminence of logic. — TheMadFool

They do contradict each other. That is why I asked how much insight was considered as a source for philosophy. If insight precedes logic and can provide understandings that that logic can only communicate but not produce, how do you consider logic preeminent?

Although we started off by associating pattern recognition with insight, I think there's something more to it than just that. — TheMadFool

There is a lot that follows insight but like sight or a computer neural net, it is pattern recognition. In both of those cases, there are existing structures to recognize the elements, but they work together to make a whole. With sight, there is no partial perception before recognition. Before insight there may be perception that there is a flawed pattern, but I think that is still the same pattern recognition function of the neural net.

Cyber-crime is a recent development and when the first laws were drafted there were no precedents - no patterns. In such cases we would need to identify the critical and nonessential elements of cyber-crime and work from these to laws that make sense. — TheMadFool

Very good. This is a case where logical analysis would solve a problem. Cyber crimes themselves are fairly easy to spot, but then again, the first ransomware was the AIDS Trojan in 1989. I bet it puzzled the heck out of some people until they had the insight to figure out what caused it. Even if they were to analyze it and figure out the mechanism of it, it was insight that put together that it was from the floppy disk given out at the AIDS conference.

OK... And furthermore!!! I would be willing to claim that no understanding advances except through the gateway of insight. Even if you are pursuing a logical thread step by step, at some point you will get the thrill of creativity that insight gives when it succeeds. Philosophy proceeds not by logic, but by insight with logic applied to it to allow extension and communication of the understanding created by the insight. So there!

I refer to its output as insight. What do you call it? — Mikey

Output. That which humans use to develop insight.

I sincerely think it's one of the only ways to do so. It's almost like we have no other choice. I actually have a hypothesis that logic and existence are the same thing, so philosophy advances with logic because logic is everything that is.

Being a student of biology I have a problem with that postulate. Evolution is driven by chance and precedence. Biology is not so driven by logic or at least not a logic available to humans.

So you believe in chance?

I don't believe in chance. I believe in a deterministic world, where every action was caused by something else.

I believe in a deterministic world, where every action was caused by something else. — ep3265

That's your privilege. Einstein believed that, but then he fell by the wayside of theoretical physics as quantum physics explained that some things did occur randomly.

I'm still not convinced of the quantum physics part, I'd like to know if you have the study linked to it so I can reevaluate determinism.

Insight in my opinion is a educated guess done by a somewhat ignorant person.
— christian2017
Fine, but what is the function of the neural net in biology and machines then? What does it do? I refer to its output as insight. What do you call it? — Mikey

I do believe in abolute truth but i believe rational people will usually settle for close enough. NASA actually does leave a extremely small amount of room for error it is just the amount of room for error is extremely small. Insight to some extent is a non scientific way to help ourselves make better decisions. Ultimately being precise is not as important as being happy.

how do you consider logic preeminent? — Mikey

This is reminiscent of the chicken and egg problem.

Is it insight that leads to knowledge and if yes, why complicate matters with logic? If logic is ultimately necessary what of insight?

We need to look into the meaning of insight. I did a cursory reading of the wikipedia entry on insight and it seems, as you suggested, that suddenness is a defining feature of insight.

That settled let's go back to logic and insight, specifically the relationship between the two. Do you think any thought would qualify as insight if it wasn't logical? In other words is there such a thing as illogical insight? I doubt there ever was/is/will be such a thing. Any thought that isn't logical would never be categorized as insight.

However, a thought maybe logical and yet not qualify as an insight. For example a lot of math problems we do in school are just routine logical rule-application exercises.

The bottomline is that logic is a necessary part of the definition of insight. No logic, no insight.

There "is" a way for insight without logic if we consider every instance of seeing something important about an issue, even if they turned out to be wrong, as insight. As you can see and as I've noticed the previous sentence evokes a resistance - something's off about it - and that is evidence, in my opinion, of our intuition that to be an insight it is necessary for it to be logical.

Do you think any thought would qualify as insight if it wasn't logical? — TheMadFool

Yes, I've had to explore the organic, that which doesn't develop logically. Evolution is perhaps the best example but also morality, a product of evolution.

The bottomline is that logic is a necessary part of the definition of insight. No logic, no insight. — TheMadFool

Nah, vision doesn't use logic and the processes are essentially the same.

of our intuition that to be an insight it is necessary for it to be logical. — TheMadFool

Nah again. A problem with insight is that it is a pattern recognition mechanism and the human mind will sometimes create patterns when there isn't one or even produce tautologies. Then those insights can be examined with logic to confirm them or disprove them or show them to be logical fluff like tautologies. Obviously then insight occurs before logic. Sight does not use logic and neither does insight.

Then those insights can be examined with logic to confirm them or disprove them or show them to be logical fluff like tautologies — Mikey

Therein lies the rub...